posted on Dec, 4 2002 @ 12:54 AM
The problem is the curve of the earth...and our atmosphere.
First problem I calculated this, from reno to SF it is about 250 miles, so for every 250 miles you drop in elevation relative to your start
location...about 22,000 feet. So Mount. Everest in SF would not even rise above the lowest saddle in the sierras next to here, in Reno.
So the building would have to be around 10000 feet, which is structurely, a HUGE feat. On top of that it would have to be significantly higher, so
that you could get an angle good enough to see anything.
Now the atmosphere becomes a problem.
Satellites can have such good resolution, because they are looking through about 60 miles of degrading atmosphere. If you were to view something from
within the atmosphere, and at an angle, the amount of "less" atmosphere is greatly reduced, not just because it only gets as thin as you are high,
but also because the angle is traveling longer through thicker atmosphere, than if you were directly above the target.
This is why satellites only look down, I once thought it would be a good idea to have the satellite's view tanget to the earth, but then realized the
image would be so distorted, you wouldn't be able to tell Michael Jackson from a black man.
This is why the sun becomes so large lower in the sky, it also becomes wavy. So you'd be peering at Area 51, but you wouldn't know if you are
looking at it, or a rock.